Comprehensive watershed development [India]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: David Gandhi
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
approaches_2374 - India
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Desai Nilesh
SAMPARK, Raipuria, Tehsil- Petlawad, Distt. Jhabua (MP)
India
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Bhattacharya Tapan
Lok Biradari Trust, Indore (MP)
India
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Danida assisted Karnataka Watershed Development Project, Bijapur (Danida assisted Karnataka Watershed Development Project, Bijapur) - IndiaName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Lok Biradari Trust - India1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
Participatory approach that includes a package of measures leading to empowerment of communities to implement and sustain watershed development.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
Aims / objectives: The approach adopted under the Comprehensive Watershed Development Project (CWDP) is intended to ensure sustainability of development interventions. This can only be achieved through creating a sense of 'ownership' amongst users, which means involving the community in planning, implementation and management of the interventions. A further, specific objective is to benefit vulnerable sections of the community.
Methods: Various methods are employed to achieve these goals. There is, first of all, awareness generation within the community through exposure visits outside the area, street theatre and video shows. After this comes the formation and capacity building of village level institutions, in particular the Village Watershed Development Committees (VWDCs). Users' groups are also formed. Micro-planning (under a 'village development plan') using participatory rural appraisal (PRA) follows. There are arrangements to ensure participatory execution of the plan, specifying cost and benefit sharing (on average 75%-90% of the work is paid for in cash under this approach). Another important element is to ensure user rights to resources. This entails negotiation with government for rights to produce from common land. Eventually, after initial implementation, management becomes the task of the users' groups: this includes maintenance, distribution of benefits and conflict resolution. The whole process involves NGOs along with government staff in order to achieve better communication all round. The participants have different roles. Government staff (at various levels) provides technical and financial support, as well as assistance towards gaining user rights over resources. NGOs are particularly important in awareness generation and mobilisation, capacity building of village level institutions, and in the process of negotiation with the Government.
Role of stakeholders: The village committee is central in planning and implementation of the village development plan, and in overseeing users's groups. Users's groups are involved in planning, implementation and then resource management. The village assembly helps to identify beneficiaries and users, and to give overall support to the VWDC. An external international donor, DANIDA of Denmark, supports the Comprehensive Watershed Development Project.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
India
Region/ State/ Province:
Madhya Pradesh
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
1997
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2007
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (1- Capacity building of communities, 2- Production system)
- create a sense of ownership amongst users. - ensure sustainability of technical and social interventions. - benefit more vulnerable sections of the community, including the poor and women. - involve the community in planning, implementation and management interventions
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: previous lack of consultation/involvement with the community in planning, implementation and management of watershed development interventions
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
Lack of awareness and mobilisationon improvement of production systems.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Intensive programme for awareness generation and mobilisation of community
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- hindering
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
institutional setting
- hindering
Lack of effective institutions at village level to take responsibility for the development process.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Formation & capacity building of VLI (VWDC,UG) with assistance of NGOs.
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- hindering
Uncertainity fover rights to access to resources
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Negotiations facilitated by NGOs
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation While treatment of privately owned land did not face a problem, encroachment on Govt. land was an obstacle which discouraged land users from implementing SWC on these lands. Furthermore it was not possible to obtain users rights on lands under the Forest Department, which resulted in their exclusion from SWC in most cases. The NGOs involved however acted as intermediaries in negotiations.
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
High cost water harvesting measures.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Demonstration of low cost alternatives such as the doh (sunken structure in dry riverbed to increase infiltration of runoff, which replenishes wells for irrigation: see 'related technology').
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
Specific ethnic groups: While the main group were Bhil tribal, other groups included Gujars, Patidars etc.
Due to social factors, traditionally decision making largely done by men. However, the project has worked towards involving women in all aspects of the project. Participation of women in decision making bodies such as village committee is restricted . Participation of women is good in implementation, self-help groups etc. The project is active in neediest & most degraded villages which are fairly homogenous in nature. Furtherore efforts are made to identify and benefit poorest households.
- NGO
- local government
Village Watershed Development Committee, Users Group.
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
Govt. of India/ Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Agriculture.
- international organization
Danida
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:
The broad approach was developed by national and international specialists at the time of project appraisal. The detailed pedagogy was developed by the project in consultation with NGO partners and consultants.
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities | Specify who was involved and describe activities | |
---|---|---|
initiation/ motivation | interactive | Mainly:public meetings; partly: awareness generation; Community meeting for discussion. Street plays, exposure visits for awareness generation. |
planning | interactive | Mainly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: group meeting; Preparation of village plan. Discussion on village plan. Negotiation, Decision making. |
implementation | interactive | responsibility for minor steps; Landusers provide labour, partly subsidized by project. VWDC members involved in supervision & payments. |
monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | measurements/observations; Water levels, migration rates monitored by community with project staff. Gram sabha (Village assembly) meets every 3-6 months to discuss project activity. VWDC meets monthly to take stock. |
Research | passive | on-farm; studies carried out by project staff. |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
CWDP-MP: Comprehensive Watershed Development Project in Madhya Pradesh PIP: Project Implementation Plan VWDC: Village Watershed Development Committee
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:
exposure visits' to outside demonstration sites are used as a tool for sensitisation, motivation and awareness raising.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Discussion with VWDC,UG.
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Ja
Specify who was trained:
- land users
- SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers
Form of training:
- on-the-job
- courses
Form of training:
- exposure visits
Subjects covered:
1- Training for VWDC, UG, SHG's to conduct meetings, accounts and book-keeping. 2- Technical trainings. These are provided by government and NGO staff. Training concentrates on participatory approaches and low cost technologies. Capacity building for community groups and land users enables them to participate better in projects and to take ownership of assets.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Ja
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:
Name of method used for advisory service: Multi Disciplinary Teams; Key elements: Field staff drawn from different Govt. line deptt. and NGO's., Village level workers selected locally, paid by the Project through NGOs., Formation, capacity building of village level institutions and farmers.; 1) Advisory service carried out through: non-governmental agency, projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: Govt.+ NGO employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Capacity building of village institutions, demonstration of SWC measures, production
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The state policies now emphasise the participatory approach. However, aspects like GO-NGO cooperation need to be instutionalised.
4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)
Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
- yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
- local
Specify type of support:
- financial
- capacity building/ training
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Ja
Comments:
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: general parameters
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: water levels in some wells
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: migration
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: yield
area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: hectares treated
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: attendance at meetings
There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Several technological changes have taken place as a result of a review: for example feedback on yield data led to crop variety recommendations. Levels of water in wells confirmed impact of the 'sunken structures' (dohs).
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
- 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 5.0%; international (-): 85.0%; local community / land user(s) (labour): 10.0%
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Ja
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
machinery | fully financed | |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
seeds | partly financed | |
Seedlings | partly financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- paid in cash
Comments:
As is common in Indian watershed development initiatives, there is a substantial subsidy towards labour involved. under this approach 75-90% of labour input is paid for in terms of cash: the remainder is voluntary contribution
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
Nee
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The participatory approach has been fairly successful in demonstrating SWC technologies such as Silvi Pasture, Sunken Structures which have been adopted/maintained by the land users.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
By using the approach, the project was able to win the confidence of most land users.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The pilot project which has tested the approach over past 3-4 years is implemented by the Department of Agriculture. The State Department of Agriculture has now expanded the approach to its other projects eg. NWDPRA.
6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
- uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:
1- NGO's will contrinue to visit villages where project has completed bio-physical activities for a period of 2-3 years with a view to provide support and further training to VLI's & communities. Hence it is pre-mature to comment at this stage.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
Awareness about SWC increased through street plays, exposure visits. Use of drama preferred to verbal communication. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue, and include visits to successful income generating projects.) |
Participatory planning has led to better understanding of resources and possibilities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The entire village plan should be implemented in defined stages to allow impact to be noted/felt.) |
Cost-sharing increases feeling of ownership. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Community contribution should be deposited in the village fund to enable further activities after project moves out.) |
Due to village institutions, there is greater decentralisation of ressponsibility and more people are actively involved. |
As a result of village fund, interest component remains within the village. |
Increased transparency as a result of GO-NGO cooperation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Less rigidity in roles of GO/NGO staff.) |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Marginalised groups have been identified and given a 'say' (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: NGOs should continue to advise/guide/monitor activities) |
Systematic approach to strengthen community participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Detailed 'process documentation' to be continued.) |
Leadership developed at village level. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: NGO's continue to advise/guide/monitor activities in the village.) |
Land users develop a strong sense of ownership of the assets created. (in terms of cost-sharing, a local contribution of up to 25% is high in Indian contexts) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: There needs to be continued support for 2-3 years after phasing out of bio-physical watershed development activities; also important to build up village funds through a 'community contribution' charge deducted from wages.) |
Government system can be strengthened by co-operation with NGOs in watershed management projects (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue dialogue between partners at various levels..) |
6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Formation of User group creates conflict with surrounding villages. | |
Segregation of responsibilities of GO-NGO staff viz. NGO role restricted to community organisation while GO staff deal with technical asspects. | Better integrated teamwork should be the goal. |
A 'community contribution' charge is currently deducted equally from all villagers by the project from wages paid | Contribution to be deposited in village fund., Should be a greater voluntary contribution from the richer farmers. |
Participation in various meetings at village level is cumbersome for women, resulting in increased pressure from male family members and loss of wages. | |
Project duration for planning and implementation too short | Increase the timespan to 3 years or more. |
Women not adequately involved in exposure visits. | Correct this imbalance/arrange separate visits for women. |
Exploitation by middlemen when small farmers market produce not addressed by the project. | Group marketing of produce. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Because of low literacy levels NGO support to village level institutions is required for more than just short-term | Adult literacy classes of sufficient duration are needed. |
PRA brings out many social factors that are beyond the scope of the project to influence eg the feudal system | NGOs need to have broadbased activity platforms that can address these issues as they arise. |
Shortage of female staff restricts contact with women land users. | Gender sensitization, training for project staff intensified. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
'Participatory approaches in watershed management- successful experinces' David Gandhi 2002
Available from where? Costs?
Indian Association of Soil Conservation, Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Insti
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules